Just a question: Why no "class restrictions"?

I am just curious why the game allows for unlimited restrictions regarding many weapon systems.

Example would be games in Player vs. Player or Players vs AI where many server have ammo crates in the spawn that allow everyone to carry almost any weapon (with a few small limitations)

I am just curious why it is even possible afterall? Its somewhat a bit strange in a game about realism and simulation to see every second soldier armed with either a anti tank or anti air weapon. It kinda removes the point of teamwork and communication in my eyes. With the SMAW in particular every soldier can literay become a tank/vehicle destroying rambo that also can use a scoped weapon (either the M24, M21 or M16 even).

I ackowledge that using anti tank weapons is not rocket science but its somewhat ontrarious to the meaning of squad/teamplay in a realistic scenario since you dont have that way no reason to fear enemy vehicles cause you can carry your main weapon and any anti vehicle weapon you want without much punishment or restrictions. Quite a few arcade shooters I know (Day of Defeat) even had a somewhat more realistic system for example regarding anti tank weapons as you could not carry a main weapon while using a anti tank weapon (Panzerschreck). while the Panzerschreck is a much more heavier anti tank weapon then modern systems - particularly anything comparable to a LAW or Panzerfaust 3 - and soldiers usualy can use them without the need to give up their main weapon and are trained to use most usual anti tank weapons its still a bit strange to see everyone runing around with one. Same to the fact that almost everyone can jump in a vehicle and driving away which makes the use of "roles" like a Pilot, Crew, Anti Tank/Anti Air specialist somewhat useless on many servers.

I know that it depends a lot on server options. But I think that Bohemia gave a bit to much freedom regarding "arcade play" since its not supportive to the immersion of a real battlefield and the need to "comunicate" and "play together".

I hope one does not see it as a rant as I am just curious as why they went in such a direction.

It's entirely in the hands of the mission maker. If they want to impose restrictions they can.

It's possible because why would BIS include hardcoded limitations that arent neccesary?

I've played on several Domination servers where AT weapons have been limited to just 1 or 2 players in each squad, i.e. a max of.. 6?

And I beleive berzerk PVP has restrictions on certain weapon combinations, and total number of certain weapons on each team, i.e. only 1/4 of the people can have a MG, 1/8 have a sniper rifle, etcetc.

Class restrictions are determined entirely by the mission. If a mission maker wishes to limite the weapons and vehicle usage that a person in a particular class is allowed to use, then so be it. The game has been out only for a relatively short time so a lot of the unique variants of missions, or missions in general, haven't became that picky yet. In time you'll start finding even Domination servers where you must join in as a pilot to fly, and only allowed to carry maybe a pistol and an mp5 if you're lucky.

When more and more groups/clans begin to settle down into the game, you'll begin to see this.

Sooooo... A medic in the real world has a BMP-3 approaching, sees an RPG7 on a dead soldier and has an opportunity. Would he say 'aww hell, I wish I could pick that up'? Or why can't a sniper snag an M-240 or it's ilk when he's being run down without the chance of escape. What in the real world holds one back? Besides the military allocation of weapons at the start of an event. I'd find it most unreal when you are caught like in the examples above, and not be able to 'figure out' a weapon and use it in a pinch.

Scrub: theres nothing stopping people from trading weapons etc, hes talking about limitations on kits given. Much like the Project Reality mod.

As mentioned above, its all up to the mission maker. I think Devastation-AAS v2 has a kit limiting system:

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=6205

Also, "hardcore" coops played by clans or tactical gamer public do sometimes have spawn-set kits and no weapons in the boxes. Also only pilots can fly etc.

Public Domination is not the place too go for cooperation and realism(no offense mission maker). Sadly, its pretty much the only thing out there being played.

When more and more groups/clans begin to settle down into the game, you'll begin to see this.

The game is out now for quite some time (not that long but its not "short" neither, average I would say) and do you really think the player numbers will significantly increase in the next months? I have my doubts about that though and regarding any changes or huge effects affecting the numbers of course except for some addon that might be released. But since Addons often enough require the original game I think its not to far fetched to say that Arma 2 will soon enough reach its peak when it comes to people playing the game and that there probably will not be a huge jump in numbers. Of course I would love to see a increase of course.

Sooooo... A medic in the real world has a BMP-3 approaching, sees an RPG7 on a dead soldier and has an opportunity.

And there is of course nothing that should stop him of doing/trying just that. I am not even complaining about that every grunt/soldier can jump in some damaged T-72 or some OPFOR the anti tank weapon Javelin without ever beeing trained in the use of such systems. The issue in my eyes are medics spawning with anti tank weapons as default you know or those engineers jumping in some tank armed anti aircraft lunchers in their poket as counter for those nasty helicopters ...

...

Public Domination is not the place too go for cooperation and realism(no offense mission maker). Sadly, its pretty much the only thing out the being played.

And exactly thats the issue. I mean I dont know if that will change in the future or not but so far at least 3/4 of all missions I played so far alow the infantry to carry almost any weapon around while I have not encountered any populated server (mind you I am not playing on a empty server only cause its a "realism server :eek: ) that had realistic limits to roles aka pilots beeing the only one permited to use helicopters/planes etc.

The decision around no limitations as general rule seems to me like a major concession regarding those people that love to frag everything without any need to worry about effective counters from the enemy like ever beeing in a situation you might not have the power to handle. Just like a way to satisfy those searching in a game for a CoD/Battlefield experience just with realistic weapon systems included (though not realistic loadout!). If those people which I dont complain about its all just a preference you know though really make the core of Arma IIs gamers and gamestyle then I doubt the game if fun for now will hold its appeal in the future in the same way it does now. But thats just me.

Tanks aren't rocket science. It took me 30 minutes to figure out how to start and run a M1 Abrams with no prior training. If it was turned on and idling like these tanks would be then driving would have taken no time. Dunno about the russians but US equipment drives like a car and is even automatic. Doubt the turret would be any work either. If its already turned on you just move the controls. I'm not saying you'll be perfect, but still.

As for kits that's on the designer. Also if the mission said there would be armor you can bet that unit is going to any extra AT gear they can scrounge up.

Anyways If you want more realism in the weapons they should all have different zeroes. Chances are the weapon you pick up off the ground won't shoot perfectly straight. Also I could agree with aircraft but even then the basics of flight aren't beyond anyone, but good luck figuring out how to shoot.

Sooooo... A medic in the real world has a BMP-3 approaching, sees an RPG7 on a dead soldier and has an opportunity. Would he say 'aww hell, I wish I could pick that up'?

well, the sniper part i agree with, but the medic? nahhh, he's not even allowd to carry an mg......

Medics are allowed to carry a wepond for personal defence (mg's, sniper rifles an at weponds are offencive.... )

though, thats irl ;)

@ op, as the others have said allready, it's realy up to the mission maker to deside.

the mission maker can put in whatever restriction he feels like putting in, like, for a 20 player coop mission, you can get 1 sniper rifle, 3 scoped rifles, 5 binoculars, 10 nvg's, 1 smaw with 7 rockets for it, 2 m136, 2 saw, 1 m240, and a bunsh of ironsighted m16's , with mp5's for the 2 medics.

or, as some have, place a crate at the insertion, and let ppl choose whatever they want ( not my favorite )

'allowed to' is different than 'has the capability to'.

I am just curious why the game allows for unlimited restrictions regarding many weapon systems.

Why force this on mission makers when they can add it if they want it?

Crni-Vuk, it seems that your new to ArmA/simulator games, your comments seem to come from time playing BF2/Project Reality or some other Arcade game that imposes kit restriction to help force teamwork. I mean that's what you saying right, kit limitations equal teamwork?

The problem is, your trying to apply organized tournament play logic to public servers, which you can't do. Ppl playing on a pub server aren't going to care about teamwork as much as those in organized play, they are there to have that open box, to jump in any vehicle, that's the fun of the game for them, you need to find yourself an organized gaming community who do require members of a squad to hold specific weapons, only allow certain ppl to use certain vehicles & have limitations on how many kits are in a crate.

Sadly most of the ArmA2 fans see the co-op pub servers & think that there aren't many PvP servers out there, no organized teamwork army style structured places to play, but there are, many of them, but because they mainly do their playing on passworded servers, the rest don't see them.

Ppl looking for these things need to check out organized communities, with custom missions, such as ours. We play AAS (Advance and Secure) maps, much like the ones in Project Reality, click my sig for more info.

First, thx everyone for the nice and politely comments. Good to see no flaming regarding the point so far.

Why force this on mission makers when they can add it if they want it?

Cause the game claims from it self to be a simulation. And to allow someome to do what ever he wants without any realistic restrictions is working somewhat against it. But thats just my oppinion

Crni-Vuk, it seems that your new to ArmA/simulator games, your comments seem to come from time playing BF2/Project Reality or some other Arcade game that imposes kit restriction to help force teamwork. I mean that's what you saying right, kit limitations equal teamwork?

...

I am not coming from Battlefield mainly (I never played any of those games neither BF1942 or BF2 etc.).

Though What I play much are simulations, modifications and/or games dedicated to realism (which does not mean inherently simulation I do use that term only very very rarely with games as most games tend to be more to just include realism and not "simulate" a situation really cause fancy balistics and ironsights for weapons alone make not a simulation in book).

Games like Red Orchestra (and its modifications), Steel Furry, T34 vs Tiger (though that was unplayable cause of bugs) and a few more games mainly mods (like Insurgency though thats just barely realistic).

Now thing is that almost ANY game with a focus on realism uses some form of class restriction. Red Orchestra is a prime example as you haev Anti Tank infantry, MG-Guners, Snipers, rifle soldiers (bolt rifles its a WW2 game), automatic weapon soldiers etc. but all in a very limited fashion on the battlefield to represent a role that got training regarding those weapons and of course cause not everyone on a battlefield was runing around as sniper or AT-guner.

I know that the reason to leave the "kit restrictions" open is for missions. What I just find a bit strange though is just from where the approach of a "battlefield simulation" comes from when you have at least 3/4 of public games ignore that fact and almost anyone is playing rather generic missions that alow unlimited use of kits and weapon systems. I dont say EVERYTHING needs a restriction. I would not complain to see a AT soldier using a machinegun instead of the M16 as the impact of that is low. But to see almost every ind of medic, machineguner, sniper etc. runing around with some AT weapon is a different issue in my eyes.

The reason to limit those in general is for the purpose of "realism" and cause the game wants to stand out as "simulation" not only team play. Albeit I would think that teamplay would increase from it at least some times. Of course quite often enough public engagements result in chaotic battles. But its a question if you either "try" to change that or even "support" it. And from what I see it gets even more support by the fact that you have no limitations. Which brings me to the point that a behaviour of "run and gun" tactics (how I call it) is encouraged in the form that you have one soldier, beeing able to do everything engagning armored vehicles and enemies on medium/longrange, patching him self up (medics) or repair his vehicle (engineers) while still fight off his most feared enemy which would be for vehicles AA units (well for tanks mainly).

If people really fear the issue that some will have roles they cant/dont want use in a usefull way you could force a "how to use this weapon in combat" game on them before they are allowed to use certain kits. That would not even be unrealistic cause as medic or other kind of soldier you would get a briefing. And how bad could it be to spend a bit time on learning how to use a weapon?

What you see at the moment as well is people jumping in some plaine or chopper, flying high, aiming for the spawn ... jumping out and start a complet chaos (but thats just rather a side effect though it would be nice to see in future a way to deal with that ...)

I am not a long time arma player though I was used to play OFP1 and I quite liked it for its realism feeling. But I am a long time simulation/realism player. Particularly regarding vehicle and infantry combat (flight sims not so much so far I lack the right tools like a joystick). And class restrictions are a important factor regarding immersive feelings in almost all of those games be it a mod or full prize game.

I hope people dont missunderstand me I am moer trying to get a discussion then just simply "complain". But I just have the feeling the current way Bohemia takes is against a simulation. Well sometimes I just think you have to "force" certain limitations on the player and mission maker.

Tanks aren't rocket science. It took me 30 minutes to figure out how to start and run a M1 Abrams with no prior training. If it was turned on and idling like these tanks would be then driving would have taken no time. Dunno about the russians but US equipment drives like a car and is even automatic. Doubt the turret would be any work either. If its already turned on you just move the controls. I'm not saying you'll be perfect, but still.

No one claimed that, but to use equipment you understand or equipment with some languages you dont understand is a small but still important difference.

I would guess that almost anyone can learn to hold a gun and pull the triger. Though that doesnt make a person suddenly inherently a sharpshooter. I guess to jump in a tank, start the engine an drive around and use eventualy even the main gun might not be impossible for a person that never got any training. But I would doubt it makes him a adequate user for that vehicle as you will sure agree that there are quite a lot of details regarding such equipment one has to keep in mind. Quite enough vehicles today are automatic in their use which I agree makes much easier. But I would be surprised to see someome handle the auto loader on a T-72 (particularly when it has a malfunction) without knowledge about the tank. Or someome use a tank to its full potential when he doesnt even know the difference between HE and AP shells, how to use its onboard night visions, targeting systems (for laser guided weapons), its defence sysetms, the driving skills (a tank might feel like a car but still it has a few odds you need to keep in mind) etc. I think you know what I mean.

So your beef is with mission makers, not the game :)

with mp5's for the 2 medics.

Why do some people seem to think that medics can only use SMGs?

I like how there are no class restrictions. Sometimes I like playing rambo.

I'm working on a class based mission with restrictions :

http://dev-heaven.net/projects/show/whis-maas

As said it's all in mission makers hand

Crni-Vuk, what community or group of ppl do you play with?

If you going it alone on Pub servers, then yes you are going to experience everything you mentioned about disorganized tactics & very little teamwork.

Now that's not to say I think anything wrong with that, lots of ppl enjoy that atmosphere & no amount of posting in here will change that, this game, compared to all the others, can offer the player so much more, unlimited kits is one of those attractions & so is the ability to do a Rambo type thing or do co-op with AI, depending upon the mission.

Most of what your talking about is not going to be found or fixed in the design of the game, but where & with whom you play it. It's not a design or mission flaw, it's the community or the lack there of, you play with.

Cause the game claims from it self to be a simulation. And to allow someome to do what ever he wants without any realistic restrictions is working somewhat against it. But thats just my oppinion.

So does that mean that sims like MSFS should not allow mods that offer unrealistic aircraft? To remove potential from a game is not the same as disallowing something during gameplay. If BIS made class restrictions hard-coded, half of the people on these forums would stop playing/editing the game.

So your beef is with mission makers, not the game :)

my beef is with the game that allows mission makers to make scenarios and/or missions with unlogic layout of equipments.

On the other side a serous question to everyone then. Maybe this shows more clear what I haev in mind. Why not complain about that the M1 tank cant use Soviet heavy machineguns for the Commander? I mean its a "limitation" with the intention of realism. Why should mission makers not get the option to use Soviet/Russian equipment on US military? Simple. Cause most of those (with some very few exceptions) could not be used right away in the field together without very heavy alterations. You can not suddenly decide to use a KORD 12,7mm on the M1 Tusk. Or Maverick missiles on the MI-8 (or other russian air craft).

here one can see "realistic" limitations that also seem to count for "mission makers". What is the issue with other realistic limitations as well? I have no issue with certain misisons if one would decide to make a "tank only" battle for example. But Would people feel fine with Russian forces using M1 Tusk tanks? Or Russian Tanks using american guns but a russian chasis? Such kind of thins are cleary not possible in the game to do (not without very heavy modifications but then you could not talk anymore about the "vanilla" arma II!). So you have in one aspect realsitic limitations and restrictions but in others not. Which is the reason I call it antithetic to the term of a "military Simulation". Of course its just MY oppinino which I express. And if the most of the community feels fine with this so be it. Just wanted to express my concerns and see what the reaction will be like. If most people want the gameplay to be around that kidn of scenario and it proves to be popular. well there is nothing I can do about and it seems Bohemia hit the nail on the head with their decision. But to talk about the big "simulation" aspect of it is somewhat shallow and even hypocritical then as you can not really call it anymore in such a case a "simulation" of military operations or scenarios which seem to be the large focus of the game (at least by thining of its marketing and advertising). This somewhat as well goes hand in hand with the concerns of players regarding the behaviour of aircrafts and other aspects of the game (like physics and vehicles).

I like how there are no class restrictions. Sometimes I like playing rambo.

There's the rub. Without any intention of insult of course. But I would talk here from false marketing then. Or a deformed view regarding the expectations from a "military simulation" (from my side). Honestly I do like to do that sometimese as well - play like Rambo. Very much even. Hence why I play(ed) quite long Day of Defeat, Counter Strike (before source ...) and Tactical Ops and Ut99. But I would not expect the same kind of feeling or gameplay from a "Simulation" and neither would I expect the "simulation" in some "arcade shooter". But thats just me. Other people. Other preferences.

So does that mean that sims like MSFS should not allow mods that offer unrealistic aircraft?

I am talking about the "vanilla" game mind you. Not user made modifications. If one want to make a mod that has pink T-90s driving around that shoot clowns at enemies with M1 tanks that have the appearance of marshemelows he can do that. I would not dare to complain about user made "modifications" to a game.

Crni-Vuk, what community or group of ppl do you play with?

Mainly on public servers - quite often with a friend in team play - and those that offer me a "adequate ping" which seems not to be always that easy to find considering the fact that not that many people Arma II (compared to other popular shooters for example, but thats a different issue).

my beef is with the game that allows mission makers to make scenarios and/or missions with unlogic layout of equipments.

I am talking about the "vanilla" game mind you. Not user made modifications. If one want to make a mod that has pink T-90s driving around that shoot clowns at enemies with M1 tanks that have the appearance of marshemelows he can do that. I would not dare to complain about user made "modifications" to a game.

Contradiction detected.

And as a mission maker, I'd be extremely upset of BIS decided to limit my capabilities... fortunately, BIS are not arrogant asshats, so I can not forsee them ever restricting us in such a way.

Contradiction detected.

And as a mission maker, I'd be extremely upset of BIS decided to limit my capabilities... fortunately, BIS are not arrogant asshats, so I can not forsee them ever restricting us in such a way.

VERY VERY true.

The beauty of OFP ARMA and ARMA2 is the Editor and the choices it gives you.

If you do not like how missions are produced, create your own, its THAT simple. BIS have simply provided a tool to allow the many many creative folk int he community to cook up whatever they want however they want. Whether it be MILSIM realism focused or DM with lasers (I exaggerate but you get my point)

Contradiction detected.

And as a mission maker, I'd be extremely upset of BIS decided to limit my capabilities... fortunately, BIS are not arrogant asshats, so I can not forsee them ever restricting us in such a way.

I dont see a contradiction.

A modification is not the same using the "editior" inside of the game.

In Modifications (as how I see it) we are talking here about a change to the game that is not present in the first place. Like the values of armor in present vehicles for example OR the change/embedment of units and weapons that are not present in the game.

I dont see it as arrogant to force realistic limitations on gamers in a simulation or game that wants to "achieve" the immersive feeling of military operations.

Again the question: Why not ask the developers to remove restrictions regarding interchange of Russian/US equipment as well to give mission makers more room and freedom.

It is possible RIGHT NOW to force restrictions, honestly I don't see what is your issue Crni-Vuk

A modification is not the same using the "editior" inside of the game.

And there are many developers who will disagree with you there.

I dont see it as arrogant to force realistic limitations on gamers in a simulation or game that wants to "achieve" the immersive feeling of military operations.

That's not what was said. You can restrict them as much as you feel necessary, but this is something for the mission maker to decide. Why? Because BIS supports the community, and this is what the community wants. I'm sure BIS would also be sad to see a ton of creative game types made by users disappear from their game that would result from such a restriction. It would probably even force BIS to redesign their own campaign.

Again the question: Why not ask the developers to remove restrictions regarding interchange of Russian/US equipment as well to give mission makers more room and freedom.

No such restriction exists...? Mission makers can mix and match any weapons/equipment they want.... and that's good.

I think the problem here is that you are thinking of ArmA as a PvP oriented game like the BF series. Well, unfortunately for you ArmA 2 is much different. You CAN play it like the BF series.... but the beutiful thing about ArmA 2 is that the rules for gameplay are not hardcoded. In fact this is the whole idea behind the concept of using mission based gameplay. This won't change, because it's always been this way since OFP, and is a core part of the game and it's community.

Now, if you actually want results, try looking into picking up mission editing yourself. That way you can easily create a style of gameplay that best suits you. All the tools you need are provided for you, you just have to be willing to learn and use them. We have a whole mission editing subforum and we'd be happy to help you learn.

I think this thread needs locked. All that was needed to be said was explained to the OP on the very first page and beyond in depth. 90% of the missions you play in the MP servers are user made (not exact figure, but it should give you a picture of the scenario). These missions right now are either custom missions ported over from ArmA1, or are missions made perhaps to fit the particular roles or needs of the clan involved in making it, or something someone cooked up for fun. There are even class restricted missions in some of the MP servers right now, maybe even on some of the Evo and Dom mission servers though I wouldn't expect too much from them being "restrictive", it's not entirely in the nature of those missions to restrict.

However as explained, the game has been out for only 3 months as of the German release, and even less than that for several others who have the game. There will be more missions in time, you might even want to take the advice from those in this thread and make you're own mission if you feel like doing so, as missions and addons are practically the backbone of this game's replayability. This game's mission editor is left open ended to create scenarios in the way that the "USER" wants, not the developers, and the users are only limited to only the lack of current custom resources and some bug issues which I imagine will be dealt with in time.